Comment on I'm looking for an article showing that LLMs don't know how they work internally

• glizzyguzzler@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Improper comparison; an audio file isn’t the basic action data it is the data, the audio codec is the basic action on the data

  “An LLM model isn’t really an LLM because it’s just a series of numbers”

  But the action of turning the series of numbers into something of value (audio codec for an audio file, matrix math for an LLM) are actions that can be analyzed

  And clearly matrix multiplication cannot reason any better than an audio codec algorithm. It’s matrix math, it’s cool we love matrix math. Really big matrix math is really cool and makes real sounding stuff. But it’s just matrix math, that’s how we know it can’t think

  source

  • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    LOL you didn’t really make the point you thought you did. It isn’t an “improper comparison” (it’s called a false equivalency FYI), because there’s isn’t a real distinction between information and this thing you just made up called “basic action on data”, but anyway have it your way:

    Your comment is still exactly like saying an audio pipeline isn’t really playing music because it’s actually just doing basic math.

    source

    • glizzyguzzler@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I was channeling the Interstellar docking computer (“improper contact” in such a sassy voice) ;)

      There is a distinction between data and an action you perform on data (matrix maths, codec algorithm, etc.). It’s literally completely different.

      An audio codec (not a pipeline) is just actually doing math - just like the workings of an LLM. There’s plenty of work to be done after the audio codec decodes the m4a to get to tunes in your ears. Same for an LLM, sandwiching those matrix multiplications that make the magic happen are layers that crunch the prompts and assemble the tokens you see it spit out.

      LLMs can’t think, that’s just the fact of how they work. The problem is that AI companies are happy to describe them in terms that make you think they can think to sell their product! I literally cannot be wrong that LLMs cannot think or reason, there’s no room for debate, it’s settled long ago. AI companies will string the LLMs together and let them chew for a while to try make themselves catch when they’re dropping bullshit. It’s still not thinking and reasoning though. They can be useful tools, but LLMs are just tools not sentient or verging on sentient

      source

      • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        There is a distinction between data and an action you perform on data (matrix maths, codec algorithm, etc.). It’s literally completely different.

        Incorrect. You might want to take an information theory class before speaking on subjects like this.

        LLMs are just tools not sentient or verging on sentient

        Correct. No one claimed they are “sentient” (you actually mean “sapient”, not “sentient”, but it’s fine as most people mix those up. And no, LLMs are not sapient either, and sapience has nothing to do with reasoning or logic, you’re just moving the goalpost)

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Do LLMs not exhibit emergent behaviour? But who am I, a simple skin-bag of chemicals, to really say.

    source

    • glizzyguzzler@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      They do not, and I, a simple skin-bag of chemicals (mostly water tho) do say

      source
  • BB84@mander.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Can humans think?

    source